Challenge Match. damajikninja v Animal: National Primaries

The topic for this debate is "American political parties owe the people a single national primary day, in the interest of equal voice for all
voters".

damajikninja will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Animal will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each
and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you
make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you
post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing
statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are
permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable,
but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points. The loser will lose 2 ranking points unless the loser already has 0 ranking
points.

Da Majik Ninja [color=#80c0e0]here, in my first ATS Debate. I'd like to thank The
Vagabond [color=#80c0e0]for allowing me the opportunity to participate. A respectful tip 'o the hat is also due to my colleague
Animal[color=#80c0e0] - I look forward to this intellectual debate.

OPENING STATEMENT
The National Primaries are considered the first major step toward winning a seat in the Oval Office. The results of these primaries is what leads
each political party to the decision of who they will nominate for their party ticket at their National Convention. In each state, voters decide whom
they think should represent their party in the election. In some states, the outcome of the state primary may even "lock in" the vote at the
National Convention.

However, the system has a flaw. States do not hold their primaries on the same day - some do it earlier than others. This presents a problem, as the
outcomes of the earlier state primaries influence other voters in other states. The candidates themselves might even see failure in the early
primaries as a sign that they should give up the race - even if he/she would have won the remaining states. This makes for a rather non-democratic
approach, as the states with earlier primaries, in effect, get to influence which candidates drop-out.

As you might imagine, states fight over who gets to have the earlier primaries. It has turned into an all out political street fight to the point
that State Convention delegates are having trouble maintaining control of the process.

To solve these problems, and to give every state fair representation, [color=#80c0e0]it is my position that there should be a single National
Primary day.

The American people have expressed that this is what they want. A recent
New York Times/CBS News poll concluded that three-quarters of
the registered voters would rather have a single national primary day. Half of the voters surveyed by the poll said that states with early primaries
have too much influence on who wins party nominations.

Even Senator Mel Martinez, R-Florida, has acknowledged the issue in a recent statement.

"For the future, we may need to think about how we control the process better and have maybe a national primary day." -- Sen. Mel
Martinez, R-Florida

So not only is a single national primary day the will of the people, and the recommendation of congressional party delegates, it would also greatly
simplify the entire process of organizing the primaries. States and party delegates would no longer have to squabble over who gets to go first, as
everyone would go at the same time. This would promote fairness and a democratic approach. Any stance otherwise would be in favor of allowing some
states to have more influence over who our Country's president will be.

Thank you for reading. We will now hear an opening statement from Animal.

To begin I would like to say thank-you to the ATS staff, especially Vagabond, for offering me this opportunity to contribute to the ATS community. I
would also like to say thank-you and good luck to Damajikninja for challenging me to this match; I look forward to a friendly, intellectual debate. I
will be arguing the CON side of the statement: "American political parties owe the people a single national primary day, in the interest of equal
voice for all voters".

Position on the Issue

Presidential Political Primaries and Caucuses are an essential element in the process of selecting the ideal candidate for each political party. Under
the current system the primary / caucus season begins with Iowa in the beginning of January followed closely by New Hampshire. Other than “Super
Tuesday” where somewhere around 22 states vote for their candidates there is a sprinkling of primaries that range from February to June ending with
Puerto Rico and North Dakota.

Today there is a growing consensus that this system is flawed. Many feel that Iowa and New Hampshire are given too much power in the selection of the
candidates for each party and that as such the system is undemocratic as some have more power than others. While it is true that candidates who do
poorly in these first contests will often drop out of the race it is in many cases not a surprise as those candidates who leave at this early stage
would face the same results time in and time out.

It is also important to note that the roll attributed to these states is not always how things work out as well. For example in this years election
cycle Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the obvious candidate for the Democratic Party. Many believed that she would claim the parties nomination
with little contest; however Iowa changed that. Clinton’s inevitable rise to he top was caused to falter by the surprise win of Barrak Obama. Then
in turn the power generated by Obama’s win in Iowa was debased by Clinton’s win in New Hampshire.

Still many still argue that the system is flawed and that it should be changed as the system, as is, serves no function. This however is not the case.
It is important to note that the separation of primaries and caucuses over a longer period of time serves two vital rolls in the presidential
election.

First this system grants the candidates an opportunity to spend time in communities within the states that they are about to take part in a primary
election. This allows them the opportunity to get to know the people, to listen to the concerns and desires of the people, and thus formulate
positions that more appropriately reflect the will of the people.
link

Second, keeping the primaries separate also allows candidates with less money than the rich or the front runners to remain viable in the election
process. The separation of primaries over 5 months allows for these candidates to spend money in one location and then raise more before they need to
spend it in another. If all 50 states held their primaries on the same day not only would the candidates not get to mingle with the people, many would
not even be able to afford advertising in the many of the states in the country. This would lead the candidates to focus on the BIG states that
offered the highest number of candidates leaving smaller states out in the cold. link

Based on this information it is my position that Presidential Primaries should NOT be held on the same day. To do so would disenfranchise more people
than the current systems does and would sever a vital connection between the candidate and the people.

This concludes my Opening Statement and Position on the Issue. Thanks you for taking the time to read this. Now we will hear a reply from my fine
opponent, Damajikninja.

Thank you for stating your position, Animal. It appears that we are in agreement on certain things.

From Animal's Opening Statements
Today there is a growing consensus that this system is flawed. Many feel that Iowa and New Hampshire are given too much power in the selection of the
candidates for each party and that as such the system is undemocratic as some have more power than others.

You are quite right - there is a growing consensus that the system is flawed, and for the reasons you have lad out here. I'm glad we can agree that
states with the early primaries DO enjoy more influence on the selection of a candidate than other states. It appears we share the opinion that the
current system is un-democratic and unfair.

The next portion of your opening remarks detail a real-world example of this problem in the current election cycle. There's no reason that Hilary
(or any candidate) should be perceived as "more powerful" simply because they won the vote in one state. As you so aptly pointed out, just because
you win one state doesn't mean you will win another. And just because you loose the first three states doesn't mean you are going to loose the rest
of them.

The current system allows candidates make decisions to stay or drop out of the race, based only on the votes in a few states. So what if the rest of
the Nation wanted to keep the guy? Too bad. As it stands today, states like Iowa and New Hampshire have more influence over each candidate's
campaign decisions than any other state. So much for equal representation.

A single National Primary Day would eliminate this problem. With all states announcing their vote results on the same day, they each share equal
influence over the race. The democratic process is restored, and the candidates each get a fair shot at seeing the ENTIRE country's vote.

In your opening statement, you supported your position with two ideas. The first was that the current system allows candidates to focus their
campaign on the states that are about to vote. Again, this is actually a problem, because since the first few states are the most important in the
current system, the candidates put all their efforts into them while many states never get a visit because they hold their primaries too late. The
system should not focus on making things easier for the candidates - it should cater to the will of the people and the equal representation of each
state's vote.

The second pillar to your position is that a single National Primary Day would hinder candidates with less money. But the current system already has
candidates with more/less money. Low-budget candidates are no more hindered in a single day scenario as they are in the current system. As a matter
of fact, a single day would allow low-budget campaigns more freedom to plan their nationwide strategies, since they wouldn't have base their focus on
the states that get to go first and the outcome of their voting. The single day system would allow them to concentrate their efforts on their
constituency, not the voting schedule.

We need a national primary and caucus day...that will end this war of attrition that eliminates the least-financed candidates regardless of the
quality of their ideas, and also ends the practice of states jockeying for position.

You also stated that a single day system would cause candidates to focus on big states with more votes. But that's what you are supposed to do in an
election... get as many votes as you can. You go after your constituency - the people that will support you. But the single day system would make
things MORE FAIR for the states,because the candidates wouldn't be so compelled to campaign in the states with early primary days. My position
allows each state an equal shot at the campaign trail.

The Single Day connects candidates with the voters. The Current System severs that connection, and instead builds a connection between the candidates
and the states with early primaries.

Question #1: What importance do you place on the fact that the majority of citizens and even some congressional delegates are asking for a
Single National Primary day?

Question #2: In your opinion, should a small number of states have more influence over the election process than others?

Question #3: Do you feel that the results of the early primaries might influence voters in other states with later primaries?

Question #4: Do you deny that Mitt Romney's recent decision to end his campaign was heavily influenced by the outcome of only a few state
primaries?

Question #5: If you were running for president, wouldn't you rather have the freedom to focus on your true constituency instead of just
states with early primaries?

In the opening of your first response you quoted me to show we agreed on a certain topic.
Actually, unfortunately you saw agreement where there was none. When you quoted me you did so out of context. I was not saying that I believe that the
system is flawed only that there seems to be a growing consensus that there is issues with the system.

Another interesting point that you made in your response was this:

The next portion of your opening remarks detail a real-world example of this problem in the current election cycle. There's no reason that Hilary (or
any candidate) should be perceived as "more powerful" simply because they won the vote in one state. As you so aptly pointed out, just because you
win one state doesn't mean you will win another. And just because you loose the first three states doesn't mean you are going to loose the rest of
them.

This response to the fourth paragraph in my opening statement demonstrates a failure to comprehend my point and the MOST critical issue that makes
elections undemocratic. That is the mainstream media. Hillary Clinton was not viewed as “more powerful” because she won one state. In fact she did
not win the first primary/ caucus state Obama did. Clinton was viewed as “more powerful” because of the way the mainstream media had portrayed her
as the likely presidential candidate for years. For example:

In 2004:

That moment, in many ways, captures the sudden reversal of the political fortune of Mrs. Clinton, the wife of a former president and a woman who has
been talked about as a possible presidential candidate herself, most likely in 2008.

Which portends well for Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2008. Not only did Kerry fail this year, but Edwards, who many
considered her best potential primary challenger four years from now, has sunk. Her path is clearer now than even she probably could have hoped.

As it is plaint o see Hillary Clinton’s run for the nomination has been pumped into the collective conscious for years by the main stream media. The
media’s roll in elections has been growing for decades. One of the major reasons that people continually want to see their primaries moved ahead is
to be viable in terms of media exposure.

Since Roosevelt’s Progressive era, the influence of party leaders over nominations has declined, while the influence of the mass media has
grown. Over the past 50 years, the emergence of new communications technologies, especially television, and changes in party rules have worked to
enhance the media’s presence in the selection of presidential candidates.
Since the first televising of a primary election, New Hampshire in 1952, network coverage has become increasingly important in the scheduling of
primaries and party caucuses. Other states now compete with New Hampshire to be “first,” and to draw the most media attention.

Another perfect example of how this institution is the true culprit for the undemocratic process of primaries and caucuses is the time each media
outlet gives to each candidate in debates and other forums. This can be seen in a document prepared for several interest groups entitled:

DETERRING DEMOCRACY:
HOW THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

To give you a feel for what this report talks about I will past in the index:

These concepts are not new, especially to us here on ATS where people like Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich get so much attention and we see how they are
systematically excluded by the media thus crippling their campaigns.

In your last response Damajikninja you said that my assertion that having primaries split up allows candidates to spend time campaigning in the states
they are preparing to have a contest in does not allow them to visit more states, because the states who have the latest primaries never get a visit.
First off I am not so convinced this is true, I do wish you would have supplied proof of this claim.

What I do know to be true is this, if the candidates have only ONE contest, that is a super primary, then only the states who offer the most delegates
will get visits. This would mean even less contact with the people of the country and is not democratic in nature. When you say the primary set up
should not be set to make things easier of the candidates but for the people, that is exactly what it is set up to do. It surprises me that you make
the claim that this is what the candidates should be doing. You yourself said:

You also stated that a single day system would cause candidates to focus on big states with more votes. But that's what you are supposed to do in an
election... get as many votes as you can. You go after your constituency - the people that will support you.

It fascinates me that you think focusing on only the large states in the primary would be more democratic than focusing more intimately on as many
states as possible in a multi-cycle primary session.

To answer your question:

#1) I think that the peoples call, and thus their representatives, for single day elections has al lot to do with the over all unfair nature of
presidential elections. Without the hype of the mainstream media no state and no candidate would have more power than another. The call for a change
in the system I believe to be in large part due to a misunderstanding of how and why the system is as it is and the impacts the change to a single day
primary would have on the democratic nature of the process.

#2) I can in absolute terms that no single state should have more power than any other.

#3) I do believe that early primary results can have an impact on other voters, especially the undecided. I do not believe this gives early states
“more power” those who are so easily convinced by the out come in Iowa or New Hampshire would be influenced by something else in their stead. It
is my stance that the entity with “more power” is the media who hypes the outcomes for their own political motivations.

#4) I do deny that Mitt Romney’s decision to end his campaign was the result of the out come of “a few state primaries”. It was the result of
his poor showing in the Super Tuesday contest where approximately 22 states voted, a system closer to what you are touting than what I am.

#5) If I were running for president I would want to be able to reach out to as many of my constituency as possible. I would abhor being limited to
only those states that offered me the largest advantage in a contest.

My point is simple. Though many see the issue as the fault of the primary’s form it is in fact the roll that the media now plays in the election
cycle that causes all the present woes.

Animal, my apologies for thinking we agreed on that issue. I see now that you were simply stating that there is a growing consensus among the
American People and their leaders that a National Primary day is needed, and that you disagree with all of them.

I also want to thank you for better explaining the fourth post in your opening statement. I had no idea you were making an argument about the
mainstream media. Matter of fact, that paragraph makes absolutely no mention of the media in any way, so you can see why I may have "failed to
comprehend" what you were saying.

In fact, you spend quite a bit of your last reply talking about the mainstream media and how they influence elections. But once again, I have
"failed to comprehend" your argument. There are countless things that can influence an election, and the media is certainly one of them, but how is
that relevant to the topic of this debate?

Oh wait I see it now. You say that the mainstream media is to blame because they broadcast the results of each primary, thus influencing the people
and the candidates. You also say that they are rather influential in organizing and scheduling the primaries. But I still fail to see the
significance of this argument, as the media is simply reporting whats going on. If there was only a single national primary day as I suggest, the
media wouldn't be a problem would it? They would simply build up hype to the National Primary day, cover it tirelessly, and report the results in
the morning or late that night.

Furthermore, you make the claim that the media is unfair in their coverage of the presidential debates. While this may be true, yet again I "fail to
comprehend" how this has anything to do with our debate topic. We are arguing the PRO and CON perspectives on having a single national primary day,
right?

I mentioned in an earlier debate post that having multiple national primary days can compel candidates to focus on those with earlier primaries.
You asked for some evidence of this. Well, ask and you shall receive.

It seems to me that the states with the earlier primaries get the special treatment. A single national primary day would allow the candidates to go
to where their constituency is - not where the state primary calendar tells them to.

You also said that a super primary would cause candidates to go to the big states, and not the smaller ones, and that this is undemocratic.
Candidates would go after the most number of votes, which might mean visits to larger states that have more people in them. But candidates could
campaign in any state they felt necessary and at anytime they choose, instead of following the primary calendar. The issue isn't bigger states vs.
smaller states, its early states getting to influence other states, and early states getting to influence candidates.

Question: Would you support a splitting the National Election day into multiple days, over a range of months?

“It seems to me that the states with the earlier primaries get the special treatment. A single national primary day would allow the candidates to go
to where their constituency is - not where the state primary calendar tells them to.”

Thank you for posting the map showing the number of Primary Events. I notice that Iowa and New Hampshire have the highest # of events, about 3 or 4
times as many as those states that follow in the rankings. An interesting point to note, one that supports my claims in earlier posts, is that the
states that follow in ranking are the larger states.

You seem concerned that states with earlier primaries would get special treatment, so it seems odd that you would then justify the obvious reaction to
a single day primary, which would undoubtedly be the candidates flooding the larger states with more delegates with events and ignoring smaller
states.

Using the premise that more attention to the primary states equates to an undemocratic process yet asserting that more attention to larger states is
simply candidates paying more attention to their “constituency” seems like a double standard.

You raise the issue that my attention to the media is a digression from the topic of the pros and cons of a single primary day. While I can understand
this statement to a limited degree I think that paying attention to the factors that ultimately are influencing the publics and the candidates
perception of who is viable is vital to the discussion. While you maintain that the multi date primary schedule is ultimately to blame for some
candidates being un-viable in the process I maintain that the media is really the culprit in this situation. Not because they report who won or lost
in the early primaries but for how they shape public opinion on candidates.

I think a perfect example of this in the current cycle is the media’s treatment of Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and all the
other republican candidates whose names I don’t even know (thanks to the media). While I can understand the confusion of how this relates to the
topic of the debate, my first post on the issue was an attempt to make the issue clear.

Since Roosevelt’s Progressive era, the influence of party leaders over nominations has declined, while the influence of the mass media has grown.
Over the past 50 years, the emergence of new communications technologies, especially television, and changes in party rules have worked to enhance the
media’s presence in the selection of presidential candidates.
Since the first televising of a primary election, New Hampshire in 1952, network coverage has become increasingly important in the scheduling of
primaries and party caucuses. Other states now compete with New Hampshire to be “first,” and to draw the most media attention.

link
As it does with many other factors in the presidential race, the media has hyped the roll of early states. Of course before technologically advanced
media people herd who own the early primaries only through other means. The roll that main stream media now plays is scales beyond what it was nice
able to. Furthermore, as the media is now a corporate endeavor the media outlets themselves are biased and work to make their choice more electable
than the others.

To reply to your question: No I see no justification for changing the Election Day process.

Question #1: When you refer to “Candidates Constituency” do you include all party members in the entire US or do you focus on party members in key
states?

Question #2: Are you saying that only states with more delegates’ posses the “constituency” of the candidates?

Question #3: Why is it you that see it more democratic for states to get more attention (and thus political power) based on size but undemocratic for
states to get more attention based on position in multiple date primaries?

From Animal's Second Reply
I notice that Iowa and New Hampshire have the highest # of events, about 3 or 4 times as many as those states that follow in the rankings.

Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire have WAY more events than any other state. You are absolutley right. And guess what? They have early primary dates.

Imagine that? The states with early primaries get more attention than those with later primaries! This completely echoes my comments in previous
posts.

What I do not understand is your following assertion:

An interesting point to note, one that supports my claims in earlier posts, is that the states that follow in ranking are the larger
states.

Ok, there will always be more events in states that have more people in them. That should be simple logic. But how does this support your claims -
and exactly what claims were those anyways? That my position would cause candidates to focus on big states? Well, this data is from the CURRENT
system. I "fail to comprehend".

You seem concerned that states with earlier primaries would get special treatment...

...which I have demonstrated...

so it seems odd that you would then justify the obvious reaction to a single day primary, which would undoubtedly be the candidates flooding
the larger states with more delegates with events and ignoring smaller states.

With a Super Primary, candidates will give attention according to population (which is where the vote comes from). A state with 10 million people
obviously does not need as many campaign events as a state with 400 million people. In this scenario, the candidates will go to the PEOPLE not the
NEXT PRIMARY.

In the current system, the states at the end of the primary calendar get NO SAY AT ALL, as most of the candidates have already dropped out by the time
their primary is held.

Which system do you think represents the people best?

Using the premise that more attention to the primary states equates to an undemocratic process yet asserting that more attention to larger
states is simply candidates paying more attention to their “constituency” seems like a double standard.

I know this is a debate, but you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Is the president elected by popular vote, or according to which states
vote first? Popular vote, right. So where is the double standard in denying a system that gives advantages, and supporting a system that brings the
vote back to the people?

The remainder of your post yet again focuses on the media's influence over the process. I particularly liked this part:

While you maintain that the multi date primary schedule is ultimately to blame for some candidates being un-viable in the process I maintain
that the media is really the culprit in this situation. Not because they report who won or lost in the early primaries but for how they shape public
opinion on candidates.

...but earlier, in response to one of my questions, you stated...

Without the hype of the mainstream media no state and no candidate would have more power than another.

Flip-flop.

AGREED - Take away a drawn out primary process, and BAM, the media cannot spin the perspectives between voting. They might spin leading up the the
vote, but don't they always? Sure they shape public opinion. But this is irrelevant and detracts from our debate.

The issue at hand is giving equal voting opportunities to every person in the US, via their states, by not having multiple days for primaries.
Congressmen, activists, radio hosts, and the majority of people agree with me - why can't you?

Or do you?

If I were running for president I would want to be able to reach out to as many of my constituency as possible. I would abhor being limited to
only those states that offered me the largest advantage in a contest.

So you would rather reach as many people as possible, and not be limited by the "contest" of early primaries?

And when I asked if you would support changing the Election into a multiple day process, such as the current primary system, you said:

No I see no justification for changing the Election Day process.

Why? Because the current primary system is flawed, and you know it.

Alright, time now for me to answer some questions of yours.

Question #1: Maybe I am misusing the term "constituency", but I am referring to "the people that support, or could be convinced to support"
a candidates platform. In other words, the people that a candidate would want to campaign to.

Question #2: No certainly not. Large states are not the only place a candidate will want to go. You cannot win by Texas and California alone.
But you would certainly spend some time there, proportionate to the amount of people there, and also depending on whether or not the people in that
state support you.

Question #2: Why? Because presidents are elected by popular vote. If there are more people in a state, then that state obviously owns more of
the vote than others. What IS undemocratic is allowing certain (often smaller) states the opportunity to shape the presidential line-up before anyone
else gets a chance to vote.

Ok, there will always be more events in states that have more people in them. That should be simple logic. But how does this support your claims - and
exactly what claims were those anyways? That my position would cause candidates to focus on big states? Well, this data is from the CURRENT system. I
"fail to comprehend”.

The point I am trying to make is that if were to move to a single day primary the results would be quite straight forward. First and fore most
candidates would spend more of their time in states with larger populations. Just as the map you provided demonstrated, if it was not New Hampshire of
Iowa the states that received the most attention, in huge numbers, were the large states.

For example California had 381 events, Rhode Island 2. Neither compares to the 2020 in Iowa or the 1139 in New Hampshire. My point is really quite
simple. There is no reason to believe that these numbers would shake out evenly to all the states in the country. While I understand the point that
larger states would obviously need more attention there is still a line of equality that would undoubtedly be crossed.

Once the campaigning is focused on the large states over the small states it means that the large states will become the deciders of elections,
disenfranchising the voters of smaller states.

In the current system, the states at the end of the primary calendar get NO SAY AT ALL, as most of the candidates have already dropped out by the time
their primary is held.

This highlights the other critical issue, which is allowing underdog candidates who have less money to be viable in the process. In a single day
primary system candidates such as these will have next to no ability to compete with the candidates who are well funded.

The final critical issue is allowing candidates to meet the public in a face to face fashion, which is what the early primaries do. While some may
contend that this does not really matter, to many it is the face to face, town hall style meetings that makes or breaks a candidate.

[color=#80c0e0]Well, here we are at the end of my first debate. I must say it has been a blast. Let me also thank Animal for a lively
exchange, and for being patient with me. As I mentioned in U2U, you have my respect. That said, lets wrap this thing up!

Closing Statement
As per the rules laid out by The Vagabond, there are to be be no rebuttals or new arguments in the closing statements. Therefore, I will now
restate and reinforce my position, and once again demonstrate the flaws with my opponents position.

It is my position that American political parties owe the people a Single National Primary Day, in the interest of equal voice for all the voters.
Throughout this debate, I have supported this position with quotes, facts, statistics, and common sense. Here is a brief overview of the supporting
ideas:

[color=#80c0e0]An End to State Attrition Over the Primary Calendar: The current system causes states to squabble relentlessly over
who gets to go first in the primary calendar. State officials and party delegates are loosing control of the process, and can no longer maintain
order and decorum in the process. A Single National Primary Day would end this senseless process, and allow each state to vote on the same day.

[color=#80c0e0]An End to Un-Balanced Influence Over Candidate Selection: The current system allows for voters in states with early
primaries to effectively select who the rest of the country gets to vote for. Voters in other states with later primaries have a less effective vote
as they only get to select between the remaining candidates. Why should some voters get more options than others? Why should some voters get to
determine who the other voters can choose from? This un-democratic process would be solved with a Single National Primary Day. My position allows
for equal accountancy for each voter in every state.

[color=#80c0e0]An End to Primary-Calendar Driven Campaigns and Platform Deviations: The current system compels candidates to go
where the primary calendar tells them too, in order to win the "next round" of a contest. A Single National Primary day would bring the focus of
the campaigns back to the people, and away from the primary contest-ladder. Candidates would no longer be able to flip-flop from state to state,
changing or modifying their positions in order to win the next round. True integrity and consistency would be required of candidates in order to
appeal to the majority and achieve their vote.

Now let's contrast by comparing my stated position against my opponent's stated views, and reiterate my stance against them.

My opponent would have you believe that a Single National Primary Day would be detrimental, and would rather keep the primaries split-up over a
range of months. However, my opponent admits that doing the same with the National Election would be decremental. While he is seemingly indecisive
on what system is best, I maintain my position.

My opponent would also have you to believe that a Single National Primary Day would cause candidates to spend all their time in larger states. He
also states that this is somehow unfair. I submit that candidates would not isolate their efforts to a few large states. Other states must also be
considered if one is to take the majority. But regardless, elections are won by a vote from the People, and the People tend to congregate more in
certain states. Therefore, candidates will certainly need to spend a little extra time in larger states in order to reach all the People. This seems
only logical.

My opponent quite concerned over the media's role in influencing the vote. While the argument may be sound, my stated position is that it is
irrelevant to the topic of debate. A Single National Primary Day would strip the media of the opportunity to spin the news between primaries.

This re-cap of our Debate clearly shows that there is only one responsible decision for our leaders to make - [color=#80c0e0]install a Single National
Primary Day.

Again, many thanks to my worthy opponent Animal. I have thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and respect you highly as an intellectual. Thanks also
to The Vagabond for facilitating this debate and allowing me the opportunity to be involved. Last, but certainly not least, I'd like to thank
YOU for taking the time to read this debate.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.